The Federal District Court of Oregon has ruled that under
recently amended Federal Rule of Evidence (FRE) 502, the
attorney-client privilege was waived when privileged materials were
produced because of the disclosing party's careless privilege
review. Relion, Inc. v. Hydra Fuel Cell Corp., 2009 WL
5122828 (D. Or. 2008).
In preparation for opposing counsel's inspection and copying
of documents at Relion's offices, Relion's attorneys
reviewed the requested documents to remove attorney-client and work
product materials. Following the inspection, Hydra's counsel
provided Relion with a complete hard copy set of the documents
Hydra selected and copied off-site, and provided Relion's
outside counsel with electronic, text-searchable copies of the
Four months following the inspection, Relion's counsel
received a letter from Hydra's counsel that discussed two
privileged emails that Hydra had copied during the document
inspection. In response to the letter, Relion's counsel
asserted that the two emails were privileged. A subsequent review
by Relion's counsel of Relion's files determined that the
emails had been inadvertently left among the documents provided to
Hydra for inspection. Relion moved to have the emails returned
pursuant to an existing protective order.
The district court relied on newly amended FRE 502 to hold that
Relion had waived the attorney-client privilege protecting the two
emails — specifically FRE 502(b)(2), which establishes
that an inadvertent production of privilege material will not
constitute waiver if "the holder of the privilege or
protection took reasonable steps to prevent disclosure."
According to the court, Relion had three opportunities to identify,
remove, and protect the two privileged emails: the pre-inspection
privilege review, the post-inspection hard copy production to
Relion by Hydra, and the post-inspection production to Relion's
outside counsel of electronic, searchable copies of the selected
documents. Relion's failure to identify and remove the two
privileged emails during these three opportunities led the court to
hold that Relion had fallen short of its FRE 502(b)(2) duty.
The Relion decision gives notice that as part of their
FRE 502 analysis, courts will be scrutinizing attorneys'
privilege review procedures. Relion also makes clear that
whether an attorney (or privilege holder) re-reviews
produced materials after production to identify
inadvertently produced privileged materials will bear on not just
the FRE 502(b)(3) question (rectifying inadvertent disclosure), but
also the FRE 502(b)(2) question of whether the privilege holder
took reasonable steps to protect the privileged material.
Mayer Brown is a global legal services organization
comprising legal practices that are separate entities ("Mayer
Brown Practices"). The Mayer Brown Practices are: Mayer Brown
LLP, a limited liability partnership established in the United
States; Mayer Brown International LLP, a limited liability
partnership incorporated in England and Wales; and JSM, a Hong Kong
partnership, and its associated entities in Asia. The Mayer Brown
Practices are known as Mayer Brown JSM in Asia.
Mayer Brown article provides information and comments on legal
issues and developments of interest. The foregoing is not a
comprehensive treatment of the subject matter covered and is not
intended to provide legal advice. Readers should seek specific
legal advice before taking any action with respect to the matters
Copyright 2008. Mayer Brown LLP, Mayer Brown
International LLP, and/or JSM. All rights reserved.
To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.
Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.
In a significant decision issued on November 13, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held that a creditor may be found liable under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (the FDCPA) even when that creditor hires a third party to collect on its debts. Vincent v. The Money Store, ___ F.3d ___, No. 11-4525-cv (2d Cir. 2013).
Some courts inexplicably hold that "when a communication is simultaneously emailed to a lawyer and a non-lawyer," the privilege cannot apply because the communication by definition is not primarily legal.
In LifeScan Scotland, Ltd. V. Shasta Technologies, LLC, the Federal Circuit found that LifeScan’s distribution of its One-Touch Ultra glucose meters exhausted its patent rights such that it could not prevent Shasta from selling disposable test strips for use in the meters.
A large corporation has been sued on behalf of a putative nationwide class. As discovery begins, in-house counsel is concerned about the cost and time involved in collecting, reviewing and producing the relevant emails, shared documents and other electronically stored information (ESI) throughout departments and across offices.
In the latest chapter of the long-running dispute between the Astro Group and the Lippo Group, the Singapore Court of Appeal has handed down its judgment relating to challenges brought by the Lippo Group against five Singapore arbitration awards (PT First Media TBK v Astro Nusantara International BV & others  SGCA 57).